Major Dump (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
::::::::::::The fact is, the source feels it important to mention "regulation" (along with "control", which as I noted, covers your concerns about non-statutory control) and that's what matters. It's IN THE SENTENCE that you're using to cite the the statement of eliminating the autonomy of large-scale capitalism: "What fascist movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism and major industry, '''AND''' creating a new communal or reciprocal productive relationship through new priorities, ideals, and extensive government control and regulation." The source is saying BOTH of these aspects are what all fascists movements have in common. That's huge. And if you choose to reveal only the first part of the sentence, only the first commonality among fascist movements that the source is presenting, you're rejecting showing of the full thought that the author is presenting in his sentence. You would be doing a disservice to the writer, and to Wikipedia readers. You would be pushing your POV, instead of being NPOV. [[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
::::::::::::The fact is, the source feels it important to mention "regulation" (along with "control", which as I noted, covers your concerns about non-statutory control) and that's what matters. It's IN THE SENTENCE that you're using to cite the the statement of eliminating the autonomy of large-scale capitalism: "What fascist movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism and major industry, '''AND''' creating a new communal or reciprocal productive relationship through new priorities, ideals, and extensive government control and regulation." The source is saying BOTH of these aspects are what all fascists movements have in common. That's huge. And if you choose to reveal only the first part of the sentence, only the first commonality among fascist movements that the source is presenting, you're rejecting showing of the full thought that the author is presenting in his sentence. You would be doing a disservice to the writer, and to Wikipedia readers. You would be pushing your POV, instead of being NPOV. [[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
*How widespread are Payne's views here? I'm bothered by the fact that his article highlights the fact that he believes this (since it implies it is unusual - if this is a common belief then his article probably should do that, and we should probably cite more than one source here.) If he ''is'' the only one who believes this then it could be undue to focus on it so extensively. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
*How widespread are Payne's views here? I'm bothered by the fact that his article highlights the fact that he believes this (since it implies it is unusual - if this is a common belief then his article probably should do that, and we should probably cite more than one source here.) If he ''is'' the only one who believes this then it could be undue to focus on it so extensively. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
::About the government control and regulation? I think you'd be hard pressed to find sources that disagree that Fascist economies were under an unusually high degree of government control and regulation. That goes with what being a Fascist is all about, control. But sure, it could use some more sources (and any that disagree, if they exist). [[User:Major Dump|Major Dump]] ([[User talk:Major Dump|talk]]) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:15, 8 February 2022
Philosophy: Social and political Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
| |||
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contemporary fascism (2008-present)
The current iteration of this section contains only one citations, and it is WP:PRIMARY. I'd argue that the presentation of this source is also probably WP:UNDUE (as well as potentially unencyclopedic in WP:TONE) but that would be worth discussing. Rather than blanking or posting a big banner, I'll invite any page watchers here who would like to improve the article to focus on that section, especially locating and then summarizing reliable WP:SECONDARY sources which discuss contemporary fascist ideology explicitly. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see that this section was added recently, just a few weeks ago. I think it's a good idea in principle, but needs a lot more work (and more sources). I assume that the article on neo-fascism would be the logical place to start looking for sources. My personal area of expertise is history, not contemporary politics, so I can't contribute much to a section on fascism after 2008 unless I do a lot of reading first. -- Amerul (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my area too. The problem is quite fraught because there is no consensus among historians or political scientists about how the term fascism should be applied in a contemporary context (except in clear-cut cases like Greece's Golden Dawn which are rather the exception). Compare e.g. this from Robert Paxton versus this from Richard Evans (two of the biggest names in this topic area) on the question of whether Trump should be considered a fascist. Or this exchange between Peter Gordon and Sam Moyn. On top of that there are some pretty strong opinions among Wikipedia editors on the matter, one way or the other. So the trick will be to keep things impeccably sourced and impeccably weighted in accordance with those sources. No stress if it's not your thing. I'm tempted to just TNT the section, but perhaps others will instead prefer to build upon what's there. Generalrelative (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever you do, please do not touch the question of whether Trump counts as fascist in this article. That's a powder keg bigger than Sarajevo in 1914. Debates would be endless and bitter. If we are to talk about post-2008 fascism, let's just stick to cases where an academic consensus exists. This is not the appropriate article to cover major controversies in contemporary politics. We could cover Golden Dawn and similar parties. -- Amerul (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've already been through the ringer on that one. My point is that there is really nothing but hard cases here. Golden Dawn, sure, which is why that's the single contemporary fascist group discussed on the main Fascism page. But once you get into "similar parties" the question becomes "how similar?" and soon you're on the slippery slope to January 6th. So we'd have to draw the line somewhere, and absent a scholarly consensus on how to do so it becomes a matter of carefully examining sources for reliability and weighing their significance to the mainstream discourse. No small task. Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Generalrelative's deletion of material
Here is what he reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism_and_ideology&type=revision&diff=1070294547&oldid=1070289535&diffmode=source
Quote from source: "Neither regime questioned private property and initiative, but at the same time, the market system no longer regulated the economy. The entire industrial and agricultural capacity of the state was subordinated to the goals set by the political leadership." Source: De Grand, A. J., Grand, D. E. (1995). Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: the "fascist" style of rule. United Kingdom: Routledge.
This is reliably sourced. Generalrelative, you owe us all an explanation. Otherwise, it just looks like vandalism. Major Dump (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- But is WP:UNDUE in an article about Fascism and ideology, not one on Economy of Nazi Germany or Economics of Fascism, where you have already attempted to add similar material and could not find a consensus to do so. Your behavior is becoming disruptive, and is rapidly closing in on the point where it will be necessary to report you to AN/I. I would suggest that you give up your quest to insert material about Nazis and the regulation of business, which has been the thrust of almost ever edit you have made, or attempted to make, to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, you should read WP:Vandalism - the definition of what is and isn't vandalism on Wikipedia is precise, and does not include what Generalrelative did. Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" when it is not is consider to be a personal attack, for which you can be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your threats aren't going to stop me from trying to improve these articles, with reliably sourced material. Major Dump (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but you see, if your behavior continues, you can possibly be blocked from editing, in which case you won't be able to do anything to any articlesBeing reliably sourced is not the only requirement for material to be added to an article, it must also be relevant to the topic, and not be WP:UNDUE, a policy with which you haven't seemed to come to grips. If you add something, and other editors believe it to be undue and remove it, repeatedly, then you must not continue to WP:BLUDGEON discussions with the same arguments over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with Beyond My Ken here. Major Dump, please refer to the request I recently left on your user talk page, and to Amerul's extremely thorough explanations as to why this content is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Economics of fascism#Major Dump's edit. I will also ask you to please avoid referring to me as "he". I use they/them pronouns. Thank you, Generalrelative (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is not that article. This is a different article, about a different thing (fascism, not Nazism). A different sentence, saying a different thing. And a different source. Explain your deletion. Major Dump (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion has been explained, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. But, then, you were not satisfied when attempts to add similar material to Economy of Nazi Germany and Economics of Fascism were rebuffed, with very full explanations. You are exhibiting what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDHT -- I didn't hear that -- behavior. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to engage and discuss with other editors when there is a dispute, but they are under no obligation to do so over and over and over again, on one article talk page after another - especially when done in such a rude manner. (You seem to believe you are our superior officer, and that you can command us to "Explain your deletion" or "Go!") Therefore, since you will obviously never be satisfied unless you are able to add material to articles that other editors disagree with, continuing this discussion holds no value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you ever have anything meaningful to say about actual content. Or is your function just to run around telling people they're misbehaving? Major Dump (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion has been explained, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. But, then, you were not satisfied when attempts to add similar material to Economy of Nazi Germany and Economics of Fascism were rebuffed, with very full explanations. You are exhibiting what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDHT -- I didn't hear that -- behavior. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to engage and discuss with other editors when there is a dispute, but they are under no obligation to do so over and over and over again, on one article talk page after another - especially when done in such a rude manner. (You seem to believe you are our superior officer, and that you can command us to "Explain your deletion" or "Go!") Therefore, since you will obviously never be satisfied unless you are able to add material to articles that other editors disagree with, continuing this discussion holds no value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is not that article. This is a different article, about a different thing (fascism, not Nazism). A different sentence, saying a different thing. And a different source. Explain your deletion. Major Dump (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sigh. Here we go again. Major Dump, although this is indeed a different article and your edit consisted of a different sentence based on a different source, the pattern is the same: You have taken a short excerpt from a source, which contained the magic word "regulation" (or in this case, "regulated"), and you put it into the article in a very prominent place in order to emphasize that fascists regulated the economy. What is different is that here we don't even seem to have a substantive content dispute, but rather merely a wording dispute. Before your edits, the long-standing consensus version said that fascism "sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state". That clearly implies that yes, obviously, they regulated the economy. The only thing missing was the explicit word "regulated" itself. You did not add a new point that wasn't there before, you merely rephrased an existing point to make sure the word "regulated" is used.
- As such, speaking only for myself and not for Generalrelative or Beyond My Ken, I don't object to this edit as strongly as I objected to your edits on the other two articles, because a wording change isn't as big of an issue as a substantive change like you advocated on the other articles. However, it's clearly part of a pattern of promoting the use of a specific term (regulation/regulated) across multiple articles on Nazism and fascism.
- Please understand that although you are editing different articles, these articles are all very closely related because they're about the same general subject (far-right governments in mid-20th century Europe). We are essentially having the same discussion for a third time now, with slight variations. Sure, it's not an identical situation as on the other two articles, but it's very similar and many of the same points apply. Your methodology still appears to be that you look for excerpts in sources that contain a specific phrasing you wish to promote, then you use those excerpts as proof texts to support that exact phrasing without regard for anything else that the source is saying immediately before or after the excerpt in question.
- As Beyond My Ken explained, just because a source contains sentence X that doesn't mean it is appropriate to add sentence X (or a close paraphrase of it) to any section of any article about that topic. An article on wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of quotes or paraphrases of quotes about its topic, even if those all come from reliable sources. -- Amerul (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that you prefer "ought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state," sounds innocent enough, until we see that it wasn't sourced. I took out that unsourced statement, and replaced with something that was actually sourced (which also happened to provide source for the first part of the sentence about private property and profit motive. My source says, I quote: "Neither regime questioned private property and initiative, but at the same time, the market system no longer regulated the economy. The entire industrial and agricultural capacity of the state was subordinated to the goals set by the political leadership."). Generalrelative replaced what was unsourced and deleted what was sourced, the the opposite of what you should be doing on Wikipedia. If someone is going to do something like that, then they at least need to provide a source. Only then would it make sense to talk about what's the better source or better wording. If you want that to stay, where's your source? Major Dump (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- As Firefangledfeathers has noted [1] this is actually well supported by content in the article's body. Indeed, there is a whole section about it. See WP:LEADCITE for why we do not necessarily overburden the lead with citations. In this case the statement in question is sourced to Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition, p. 162. Major Dump, please check on this kind of thing yourself in the future before adding "citation needed" tags or posting accusatory comments on Talk. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. Major Dump (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am indeed
just trusting other Wikipedia editors.
That's called assuming good faith and it's a requirement. If indeed you did not find this statement on that page, I'd suggest first checking to ensure that you have the same edition. And if you do, you could take the time to find where in the the book this is stated explicitly. You can then correct the page number in the citation. That would be genuinely helpful. But assuming that the editor who added this was simply lying is a violation of behavioral guidelines. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)- The policy should be "Assume Good Faith But Verify." Wikipedia is loaded with statements that appear to be cited but are not. I don't see that statement like that in the book; there over 200 pages to look through. I do see it in another Payne book, "A History of Fascism," which is probably where it came from. It says "What fascists movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism...." Will you accept that as a source, and not revert my edit as long my wording does not distort the sentence in the source? Major Dump (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, verifiability is a core policy. Please do fix the reference. By the way, I see what you've left out at the end of the sentence. This is not permission to add undue discussion of "regulation" against consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like FFF beat you to it anyway. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Funny. I was waiting with bated breathe to see what your objection you were going to come up with this time to keep reliably sourced information out. It looks like you have no meaningful objection so far. Just "against consensus." You don't know what the consensus is now, because this is a new source. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22Major Dump (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please refer to Amerul's comment above: [2]. I agree completely with what they've said. Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- BTW I'm fine with your addition to the quotation in the reference. That seems WP:DUE to me. Generalrelative (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good. Because I'm going to go in word it to reflect full context what the sentence says. Right now, it's not at all clear what eliminate autonomy of large-scale capitalism is referring to. The rest of the sentence clarifies it's talking about extensive control and regulation. 17:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Dump (talk • contribs)
- I have disputed that your repeated attempts to highlight regulation as an aspect of fascism are WP:DUE, as have two others, including on this page and with regard to this specific content. If you continue to edit in clear and knowing violation of WP:ONUS that will be crossing a bright red behavioral line. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- You've crossed a bright red line behavioral line many times now. You've been repeatedly reverting important notable information of the articles that reliable sources are unquestionably saying. I've crossed no red line. What I've been doing is what Wikipedia is all about. Major Dump (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- You consider the first part of the source's sentence "due," but not the second part when there's no indication that the writer doesn't consider the second part of his sentence important too. And with no explanation. At this point, "due" to you appears to simply amount to what you want there, and not due is what you don't want there. Major Dump (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Generalrelative is referring to crossing a behavioral bright red line on your part, related to what I posted above WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, editing against consensus, etc. Generalrelative has done none of these things, merely edited per Wikipedia's policies, and is in no danger of being reported for their behavior. You are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- And personal attacks such as this and the one below certainly don't help you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not sure what your function is here. If you an interest in these articles, please contribute something. Do you object to some particular content? If so, why? Engage. So far, the only reason you ever give for trying to stop me from adding content is you telling me that the two other guys object, and that they're the consensus. How about you? Do you have any views of your own? Major Dump (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's precisely the kind of comment that's like to get you blocked. Please consider this a final warning: if you continue your current behavior, I will have no choice but to report you to administrators for sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just trying to figure out what your views on the topic are. Major Dump (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's precisely the kind of comment that's like to get you blocked. Please consider this a final warning: if you continue your current behavior, I will have no choice but to report you to administrators for sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Generalrelative is referring to crossing a behavioral bright red line on your part, related to what I posted above WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, editing against consensus, etc. Generalrelative has done none of these things, merely edited per Wikipedia's policies, and is in no danger of being reported for their behavior. You are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have disputed that your repeated attempts to highlight regulation as an aspect of fascism are WP:DUE, as have two others, including on this page and with regard to this specific content. If you continue to edit in clear and knowing violation of WP:ONUS that will be crossing a bright red behavioral line. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good. Because I'm going to go in word it to reflect full context what the sentence says. Right now, it's not at all clear what eliminate autonomy of large-scale capitalism is referring to. The rest of the sentence clarifies it's talking about extensive control and regulation. 17:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Dump (talk • contribs)
- Funny. I was waiting with bated breathe to see what your objection you were going to come up with this time to keep reliably sourced information out. It looks like you have no meaningful objection so far. Just "against consensus." You don't know what the consensus is now, because this is a new source. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22Major Dump (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The policy should be "Assume Good Faith But Verify." Wikipedia is loaded with statements that appear to be cited but are not. I don't see that statement like that in the book; there over 200 pages to look through. I do see it in another Payne book, "A History of Fascism," which is probably where it came from. It says "What fascists movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism...." Will you accept that as a source, and not revert my edit as long my wording does not distort the sentence in the source? Major Dump (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am indeed
- I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. Major Dump (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- As Firefangledfeathers has noted [1] this is actually well supported by content in the article's body. Indeed, there is a whole section about it. See WP:LEADCITE for why we do not necessarily overburden the lead with citations. In this case the statement in question is sourced to Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition, p. 162. Major Dump, please check on this kind of thing yourself in the future before adding "citation needed" tags or posting accusatory comments on Talk. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Amerul, you say "the long-standing consensus version said that fascism "sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state". That clearly implies that yes, obviously, they regulated the economy." No, it doesn't. "Bolstering private power with the state" ? That doesn't even make sense with what we know sources in general say about fascism. Sources indicate private power is reduced, regulated, not bolstered. Now what reason do you have to exclude mention of regulation? (The source says "extensive government control and regulation"). Major Dump (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, I want to point out that there have been 46 edits to this talk page since the last time I was online (yesterday, not even 24 hours ago), largely the result of Major Dump demanding explanations for why his preferred wording is still being objected to. This is an extreme level of activity for something that would normally be a minor dispute. I have seen many situations where different editors had different opinions about the best way to phrase something, but I don't remember ever seeing one with this level of intense insistence by one editor on one very specific word ("regulation").
- Major Dump, as I said before, "eliminating the autonomy of large-scale capitalism" clearly implies regulation (but again, without using the explicit word itself, which seems to be your concern). "Eliminating autonomy" and "increasing regulation" mean substantially the same thing. In fact, ironically, to my ears "eliminating autonomy" sounds like it's talking about a higher level of control than mere "regulation". I'm not sure what else can be said about this. We are close to descending to the point of "yes it does", "no it doesn't". Why do you care so much about the exact wording here?
- With regard to another point you made: No, sources "in general" do not say that private power is reduced. That would be a huge over-simplification of a complex relationship between state and industry. Private power was reduced in some ways and increased in other ways.
- For example, just flipping through the first book on the topic that came to mind (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), I found this passage about the relationship between state and business in Germany immediately after Hitler became Chancellor (p. 168 in the edition I have):
The big businessmen, pleased with the new government that was going to put the organized workers in their place and leave management to run its businesses as it wished, were asked to cough up. This they agreed to do at a meeting on February 20 at Goering's Reichstag President's Palace, at which Dr. Schacht acted as host and Goering and Hitler laid down the line to a couple of dozen of Germany's leading magnates, including Krupp von Bohlen, who had become an enthusiastic Nazi overnight, Bosch and Schnitzler of I. G. Farben, and Voegler, head of the United Steel Works.
- There is much more to be said about the voluntary cooperation of German business with the Nazi regime, but here we have an excerpt that mentions the Nazi government "leav[ing] management to run its businesses as it wished". Of course this is talking about internal aspects of business, the point is that business owners were given more power over their employees, not over the prices they set for their products for example. But that's exactly what I'm saying. Private power was reduced in some ways and increased in other ways.
- Having said all that, I'm actually fine with removing the phrase "bolstering private power with the state". It was a long-standing consensus phrase, but not an especially good summary of this complex issue. So I won't add it back in. I said the above just in order to emphasize that this is, in fact, a complex issue. -- Amerul (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- You changed it to "but it sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism from the state." What does that mean? Eliminate autonomy from the state? I don't get it. And what's your source for that? To your question my insistence about the term "regulation," my concern is that's what term the source uses, actually "regulation and control." The point is government is taking action to control the economy, rather than leaving it to the forces of supply and demand. That's the point these sources are making. I don't understand why you're so opposed to the term "regulation." It's in the source, in the very sentence being referenced for "large-scale capitalism", so we shouldn't even be having an argument. Major Dump (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have anything against the term "regulation" in general (I just think it's a less-than-optimal way to describe what we're talking about here, see below). The reason I keep pointing it out is because this is the third far-right-related article where you've tried to insert and/or emphasize the term "regulation" in a prominent position, and almost all your edits have been dedicated to this single task of promoting that term as a way to describe the actions of the far-right. It's one thing to argue that the term "regulation" is the best way to describe a certain issue in one article, it's another thing to promote it everywhere. If you picked any other single term and insisted on it across a range of related articles, you'd probably get similar opposition from the editors active in that subject area.
- But let's get back to the issue at hand here. Autonomy means the state of existing or acting separately from others, the ability to make decisions without external constraints. It's close in meaning to "independence". So, autonomy from the state means being able to make decisions without regard for the state; it means acting separately or independently from the state. Do you see why "eliminate autonomy from the state" means substantially the same thing as "increase regulation"? To eliminate an organization's autonomy from the state means to align that organization with the state; to make its goals the same as (or broadly similar to) the state's goals.
- So why do I think that "eliminating autonomy from the state" is a better phrasing than "increasing regulation", if they're so close in meaning anyway? First, because the term "regulation" often implies that the rule of law is in effect. We usually say that an organization is "heavily regulated" if there are many written rules it has to follow. But a fascist state is not a Rechtsstaat, it's not based on rule of law, it's based on arbitrary rule. The "regulations" of a fascist state are subject to change at any time without warning at the pleasure of the dictator, and often they are not written down at all, but are rather verbal orders (Hitler was particularly famous for not giving orders in writing). Second, the term "regulation" tends to refer to something externally imposed; an organization that is said to be "regulated" generally does not want to be regulated. But many large companies were willing collaborators with fascist governments, eager to align their goals with the state (give up their autonomy) and support the political leadership in exchange for higher profits and other benefits.
- Sure, these are relatively small differences in nuance, and neither phrasing is perfect, but if we're going to summarize this complex issue in one sentence, I think "eliminating autonomy from the state" is (to some degree) better than "increasing regulation". -- Amerul (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm very much agreed on that last point. The fascist regulatory environment was clearly a moving target, but the goal of continually reducing autonomy from state control was not. The latter is about ends, the former is about means, and we know which one mattered to fascists. pauli133 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, I didn't say to use the term "increasing regulations." That's not in the source. Secondly, the source doesn't just say "regulations." It says "government CONTROL and regulation." So that covers what you're pointing out. So, if we put "control and regulation" in the text, that covers your concerns. Major Dump (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact is, the source feels it important to mention "regulation" (along with "control", which as I noted, covers your concerns about non-statutory control) and that's what matters. It's IN THE SENTENCE that you're using to cite the the statement of eliminating the autonomy of large-scale capitalism: "What fascist movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism and major industry, AND creating a new communal or reciprocal productive relationship through new priorities, ideals, and extensive government control and regulation." The source is saying BOTH of these aspects are what all fascists movements have in common. That's huge. And if you choose to reveal only the first part of the sentence, only the first commonality among fascist movements that the source is presenting, you're rejecting showing of the full thought that the author is presenting in his sentence. You would be doing a disservice to the writer, and to Wikipedia readers. You would be pushing your POV, instead of being NPOV. Major Dump (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- How widespread are Payne's views here? I'm bothered by the fact that his article highlights the fact that he believes this (since it implies it is unusual - if this is a common belief then his article probably should do that, and we should probably cite more than one source here.) If he is the only one who believes this then it could be undue to focus on it so extensively. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- About the government control and regulation? I think you'd be hard pressed to find sources that disagree that Fascist economies were under an unusually high degree of government control and regulation. That goes with what being a Fascist is all about, control. But sure, it could use some more sources (and any that disagree, if they exist). Major Dump (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)